What?!? My sole purpose in life is not to programmer, but I am nevertheless a programmer. I recommend you go buy a dictionary, and use it prodiguously, because you have no clue about English morphology.
The thing is, a clearer specification and better flow for form-handling most definitely is needed.
I'm to lazy to RTFA (especially if it's a W3C spec), so I'll ask you: does this specification consist of the standard `come up with a syntax that allows for 30 billion programs of a given length and declare 200 of them `correct' ' crap?
Basically, once you write the content, you never have to worry about formatting, that's not your concern.
Right. And as soon as those concerned with formatting can do a decent job of it (like, say, catching up to what TeX had in the mid-80s, or what old-fashioned linotypes had even before then), I'll start listening.
Right. Until they come up with a way to make good markup significantly easier than bad markup (I'm a Haskell geek, so I'd suggest a good combinatorial approach, except that wouldn't work in XML), bad markup will prevail.
Am I the only one with warning bells going off in my head? This sounds to me like `make writing it wrong harder' (which increases average difficulty), rather than `make writing it right easier' (which decreases average difficulty). Ultimately, successful standards are those which most decrease average difficulty, regardless of how execrable the solutions they produce (i.e., C), not those that most increase average difficulty, regardless of how beautiful the solutions they produce (i.e., Ada).
No. This is not just an `attitude' that `Linux zealots' have. This is what makes Linux different; this is the only thing that could make users want Linux. If this attitude is a problem, that means Linux should not succeed---because it means users don't want Linux.
Yes and no. Sure, we've got to sell to ordinary users. But if we forget our techie base, we'll lose the only thing we had to sell to them to begin with.
Well, pound = lb, right? Now, l = 50 (roman numerals), so lb = 50 bytes. However, for simplicity of conversion, we will binaryize this by declaring one kb = 20 lb.
What you say is equally true for software. You can read software, write down a re-implementation, and---as long as it's in your own words---it's not copyright violation. Your point is?
Perhaps you have a point (although the question is: why do such things attract mates?). In any case, the fundamental question: is this biological evolution, or a justification for biological evolution; remains untouched. Even sexual selection relies on having at least mammals in the first place.
All I have is a vague memory of a Hayek quote that biological evolution (which is evolution by no-intelligence selection) arose from the consideration of societal evolution (which is evolution by distributed-intelligence selection). Hence the IIUARC.
It hardly matters. True Darwinian selection is (necessarily) unguided by the input of any intelligence.
It is precisely this confusion of `no one intelligence' with `no intelligence at all' that (IIUARC) gave rise to Darwinism in the first place, though...
In other words, Microsoft is saying: "If you'll claim that Microsoft software contains code that you own, and you come asking us or our clients for a license fee a la SCO, then we'll sue you to kingdom come."
Which is of course far more likely to be true is MS's case than otherwise...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah! Anything to cut down on the government's tax revenues!
What?!? My sole purpose in life is not to programmer, but I am nevertheless a programmer. I recommend you go buy a dictionary, and use it prodiguously, because you have no clue about English morphology.
You mean `charities' like Planned Parenthood? Yeah, sure, support Bill Gates the baby-murderer.
Weird? Maybe. Tolkienesque? Sure---go look up the Gift of Men at the end of the Music of the Ainur (in the Silmarillion).
Um, no. Tolkien was a Roman Catholic writing from a Roman Catholic perspective.
TeX is not a labor-intensive process, though, and it's still just as high-quality.
OK. I thought you might be saying that Linux is good stuff, it's just being killed by it's advocates' attitudes---obviously a false proposition.
Nothing's wrong with content-style-logic. As long as doing things that way really is long-term easier for the problems people actually face.
I'm to lazy to RTFA (especially if it's a W3C spec), so I'll ask you: does this specification consist of the standard `come up with a syntax that allows for 30 billion programs of a given length and declare 200 of them `correct' ' crap?
Why? Why exactly `should' browser developers have implemented CSS `years ago'?
Right. And as soon as those concerned with formatting can do a decent job of it (like, say, catching up to what TeX had in the mid-80s, or what old-fashioned linotypes had even before then), I'll start listening.
Right. Until they come up with a way to make good markup significantly easier than bad markup (I'm a Haskell geek, so I'd suggest a good combinatorial approach, except that wouldn't work in XML), bad markup will prevail.
Am I the only one with warning bells going off in my head? This sounds to me like `make writing it wrong harder' (which increases average difficulty), rather than `make writing it right easier' (which decreases average difficulty). Ultimately, successful standards are those which most decrease average difficulty, regardless of how execrable the solutions they produce (i.e., C), not those that most increase average difficulty, regardless of how beautiful the solutions they produce (i.e., Ada).
No. This is not just an `attitude' that `Linux zealots' have. This is what makes Linux different; this is the only thing that could make users want Linux. If this attitude is a problem, that means Linux should not succeed---because it means users don't want Linux.
Yes and no. Sure, we've got to sell to ordinary users. But if we forget our techie base, we'll lose the only thing we had to sell to them to begin with.
Well, pound = lb, right? Now, l = 50 (roman numerals), so lb = 50 bytes. However, for simplicity of conversion, we will binaryize this by declaring one kb = 20 lb.
What you say is equally true for software. You can read software, write down a re-implementation, and---as long as it's in your own words---it's not copyright violation. Your point is?
Maybe having a better educational infrastructure will improve their culture?
Perhaps you have a point (although the question is: why do such things attract mates?). In any case, the fundamental question: is this biological evolution, or a justification for biological evolution; remains untouched. Even sexual selection relies on having at least mammals in the first place.
All I have is a vague memory of a Hayek quote that biological evolution (which is evolution by no-intelligence selection) arose from the consideration of societal evolution (which is evolution by distributed-intelligence selection). Hence the IIUARC.
It hardly matters. True Darwinian selection is (necessarily) unguided by the input of any intelligence.
It is precisely this confusion of `no one intelligence' with `no intelligence at all' that (IIUARC) gave rise to Darwinism in the first place, though...
Which is of course far more likely to be true is MS's case than otherwise...
It's not a (pro-MS Gartner) report; it's a pro-MS (Gartner report). IOW, `pro-MS' modifies report, not Gartner.
Here's a hint, buddy: grow a damn thicker skin when you're talking to fucking trolls.
Now tell me you thought my quotes were insulting.
I'm sorry; how is it arrogant to understand what mathematics is?